Harassment Guide Misguided in Scope

Those of us who are greatly concerned about free speech and harassment on
campus find it ironic and sad that some fellow students, faculty, and staff
insist on pitting free speech rights against concerns over various forms of
harassment. There is, in fact, no fundamental conflict between these two
serious issues. A clear, definitive, and harsh policy on true forms of
harassment would allow the Institute to concentrate all of its limited
resources on preventing violations. Instead, we have a dangerously broad
and hopelessly shallow policy that both jeopardizes freedom of expression,
and relies too heavily on the arbitrary interpretations of individual
complaint handlers to be effective in curtailing severe cases of
harassment.

Yet, in a recent letter to the editor, ["Harassment Guide is a Valuable
Reference," Nov. 12] Albert L. Hsu '96 and Per E. Juvkam-Wold '94 have
obviously read neither The Tech article ["Protesters Burn Harassment
Book," Nov. 2] nor the harassment guide very carefully because they persist
in viewing the issues in the simplistic terms of free speech versus
harassment. Hsu and Juvkam-Wold wrote that some "were worried that the
guide wouldn't go far enough in dealing with [harassment]," whereas those
concerned about free speech "are worried that the guidebook goes so far in
protecting people from harassment that it endangers the rights of others."
People who are concerned about free speech are in fact worried that the
guidebook goes so far in endangering the rights of others that it can't
possibly protect people from harassment.

The guide lumps telling offensive jokes with physical assault or being
threatened with one's job. For example, in a form for complaints in the
appendix (p. 63), it actually lists "verbal" as a form of sexual assault.
How can we claim to be serious about outrageous criminal actions when we
trivialize them to the point of anything which has the effect of creating
an offensive environment? They aren't throwing the baby out with the bath
water, they've thrown the baby out and left the bath water behind!

We cannot accept the argument of vigilantes and authoritarians, that if
you're really concerned about the crime you must be willing to sacrifice
freedom and due process: "string 'em up now, ask questions later!" History
has shown that only a commitment to reason, due process, and the rights of
all, leads to a serious decline in crimes. This is because only when people
know the rules and procedures to be fair, open, and just can they truly
come to respect -- and abide -- by them.

Either the administration does not understand the seriousness of the
activity going on, or prefers to placate the concerns of harassment victims
rather than truly address them. Instead of a policy harsh and definitive in
true cases of harassment, they have come up with a policy that is vague,
timid, and selectively enforceable in all areas of personal interaction.
They have shoved everything into the mysterious nether world of advisors
and administrators, where decisions are made behind closed doors and away
from scrutiny, even from the interested parties. We've seen this before.
One formal committee rules one way, a dean or associate provost rules the
other. End result? Who knows?

Instead of a taking a bold approach, the guide tells us to "avoid putting
these essential elements [speech and civility] ... to a balancing test" (p.
18). The insinuation is clear -- in order to really do anything about one
we must sacrifice the other. They've set up the straw man that speech may
be in conflict with harassment because they do not understand that a
person's expression of ideas -- no matter how hostile and offensive they
may be -- have nothing to do with the dangerous power play that is
harassment. Almost thirty years ago, students across the nation fought hard
for the freedom of expression we now enjoy. Are we supposed to sit idly by
while those hard won freedoms are tossed out the window like a sacrificial
victim for the angry mobs?

A university is a place to be stripped of your naivet, to have heated
debates, to hear your core beliefs trampled on like so much garbage. In
that firestorm of conflicting ideas you find out what you truly believe,
what stuck, what held up under scrutiny. You come out stronger and better
able to assert yourself. That's not harassment, it's self discovery! The
saddest part of all of this is, we have real people here in need of serious
help. Don't make them pay by demanding a loss of freedom that will confuse
the issue and won't even help them in the first place. As the saying goes,
"those who would sacrifice liberty for security will lose both, and deserve
neither."